The EU's Embarrassing Little Secret in Labeling Israeli Products

The EU alleges that the "Interpretive Notice" has nothing to do with a boycott of Israel, and the U.S. has officially concurred in that assessment. The EU says the Interpretive Notice merely responds to "a demand for clarity from consumers, economic operators and national authorities." But this is disingenuous.

There is a long list of separatist movements in the EU, some demanding independence, others demanding greater autonomy. It is easy to imagine that some Jews in Israel have corresponding sympathies with such movements and "demands for clarity" about the products of the respective European states. Surely some Israeli Jews would like to buy Scotch whisky only from the few firms that are still in Scottish hands. How can Israelis' right to know fairly be denied? Israel is entitled to request that Europeans label their products accordingly.

What has happened is another manifestation of the infuriating zeal of the European Commission to issue endless directives to all member states in order to impose uniformity in cases where most Europeans never imagined that uniformity was necessary.

On November 11, 2015, the Commission of the European Union issued the "final" version of its "Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967." It recommends the labelling of all such goods as originating in an "Israeli settlement." The decision aroused dismay and anger not just in the parties constituting the current Israeli government but also in most of the parliamentary opposition in the Knesset.

After all, the original settlement program in all those areas was the Allon Plan. This plan was adopted shortly after 1967 by the then Labour Alignment, which was the direct ancestor of the chief current opposition party. So the European Commission has succeeded in alienating also those whom it would like to replace the Netanyahu government.

One current Knesset member, Michael Oren, reacted to the "Interpretative Notice" by getting himself photographed in an Israeli supermarket where he was sticking homemade "Made in Europe" labels on the appropriate products. His evident aim was to dissuade Israelis from buying them.

Superficially, Oren's reaction conforms with one of the four anti-boycott strategies that this author recently defined, namely, to organize boycotts of boycotters. But Oren's hasty reaction, if it should succeed, would achieve the opposite of his aim.

Oren is correct in his perception that Israel has little power to influence decisions of the European Union (EU), but every power to impose its own labelling requirements. But he overlooked the basic fact that, currently, only three members of the EU require such labelling: Belgium, Denmark and the United Kingdom.

What has happened is another manifestation of the infuriating zeal of the European Commission to issue endless directives to all member states in order to impose uniformity in cases where most Europeans never imagined that uniformity was necessary. This behaviour, together with the propensity of European courts to overrule UK law, is what mainly propels the increasing desire of Britons to leave the EU. We should not rush, as Oren did, to punish all the EU states for the follies of the Commission.

Consequently, the Israeli reaction should be directed only toward EU states that implement the "Interpretive Notice," thus encouraging the other member states to ignore it. Indeed, the "Interpretive Notice" itself states that "enforcement of the relevant rules remains the primary responsibility of Member States."

A "senior European official" has admitted that the European Commission restricted itself to giving advice. As for the member states, he remarked: "If they don't do it, most likely not much will happen. But 16 member states did ask for clarification so I assume this will be partly implemented." Already, implementation of the "Interpretive Notice" has been rejected by the Hungarian minister for foreign affairs and trade, and by the ruling CDU faction in the German parliament. So Israel is entitled to draw up its own labelling requirements, but should apply them only to imports from EU states that impose labelling requirements on Israel.

Michael Oren himself could introduce appropriately targeted Israeli regulations by submitting a private member's bill in the Knesset. (Obviously, this path is more tactful than legislation initiated by the government itself.) If that is more trouble than Oren needs, there are over a hundred other Knesset members who could do it. To that end, let us first examine the provisions of the "Interpretive Notice" and then employ them as a precedent for the Israeli response.

Rights and Wrongs of the "Interpretive Notice"

The Interpretive Notice begins by noting that the EU "does not recognise Israel's sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem." Indeed, all the trade agreements between the EU and Israel were made on that assumption, which Israel respects. Consequently, Israel agreed a decade ago that goods produced in those areas should not enjoy, for instance, the same tax exemptions as goods produced in pre-1967 Israel.

Thus far the Commission is within its rights, also when it notes that EU legislation requires goods to show their "country of origin" or at any rate their "place of provenance." Where the Commission goes astray is in its attempt to define the implications of that requirement in the present case. The Interpretive Notice states (Section 10):

"For products from the West Bank or the Golan Heights that originate from settlements, an indication limited to 'product from the Golan Heights' or 'product from the West Bank' would not be acceptable. Even if they would designate the wider area or territory from which the product originates, the omission of the additional geographical information that the product comes from Israeli settlements would mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. In such cases the expression 'Israeli settlement' or equivalent needs to be added, in brackets, for example. Therefore, expressions such as 'product from the Golan Heights (Israeli settlement)' or 'product from the West Bank (Israeli settlement)' could be used."

Consider the case of Inon Rosenblum, which was recently featured in the Times of Israel. Rosenblum was told by his Palestinian neighbours in the Jordan Valley that nothing could grow in the intensely salty soil. Undeterred, he spent decades improving the soil, which now produces "dates, grapes and ten kinds of fresh herbs, all for export." Apart from himself and his son, everyone else working there is Palestinian. He also gave his Palestinian neighbours date palm seedlings so that they could start their own production. Result: the circa 7,000 Israelis and 10,000 Palestinians living in the Jordan Valley now "account for 40% of the medjool dates around the world."

Next, consider whisky production in Scotland. According to the Distillery Owners Guide, Scotland's distilleries are today overwhelmingly owned by non-Scots. The biggest owner is Diageo, with headquarters in London, but other owners include huge corporations whose headquarters are in India, Thailand and Japan, not to mention Trinidad and other countries. Typically, most of the workers in the distilleries are Scots, but the top management may come from outside Scotland.

The European Commission wants to distinguish between Rosenblum and the Palestinian neighbours whom he helped, by labelling his dates "Israeli settlement." By the same token, those distilleries in Scotland and the residences of their managers constitute English settlements, Indian settlements, Thai settlements, etc. For that matter, if an Indian company purchased Rosenblum's plantations and installed an Indian manager, they would then also become an Indian settlement.

On the Golan Heights, the situation is somewhat simpler. The area belonged to the sovereign state of Syria, as defined by the boundary between the former French and British Mandates, except for where the Syrian regime had encroached beyond that boundary in the years before 1967. There is a clear distinction between Syrian citizens, who live in the four Druze villages, and Israeli citizens.

Not so in the West Bank. Before 1967, the Palestinians living there were Jordanian citizens. They and their offspring mostly continue to hold Jordanian passports. So if Rosenblum's dates are to be labeled "Israeli settlement," the dates grown from the plants that he gave his neighbours should be labeled "Jordanian settlement." This is no joke: the Jordanian regime has formally renounced claims to the territory, but it continues to seek influence there. In particular, it is proud that Jordan, not the Palestinian Authority, officially administers the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

In so-called "East Jerusalem," the situation is even more complicated. A considerable number of Israeli Arabs, especially from the Galilee, have taken up residence there. So any business of theirs is an "Israeli settlement," according to the European Commission. The Jordanian citizens that Israel found there in 1967 were all given Israeli identity cards. In the meantime, thousands of them have taken out Israeli citizenship, which required renouncing their Jordanian citizenship, and thousands more have submitted applications. Thus, according to the European Commission, any business of theirs instantly becomes an "Israeli settlement" when their application is accepted, and they must re-label their products accordingly. (The same applies to those Golan Druze who have taken out Israeli citizenship, but they are numbered in hundreds rather than thousands.)

This is so ridiculous that the European Commission would be advised quietly to forget about "East Jerusalem" in promoting its "Interpretive Notice." The geographic term itself has become ridiculous. Jerusalem is located on a mountain ridge running from north to south, so since 1967 the Jewish population has expanded in those directions, not to the east. Because the European bureaucrats repeat their archaic vocabulary rather than consult the map, they imagine that such neighbourhoods as Ramot (Northwest Jerusalem) and Gilo (Southwest Jerusalem) lie in a mythical pre-1967 "East Jerusalem."

Boycotting products made by Jews, now, and then.

Potential Israeli Regulations

The "Interpretive Notice" of the European bureaucrats, seeking to clarify regulations, has ensnared itself in absurdities. Precisely those absurdities provide a precedent for ingenuity in formulating corresponding Israeli regulations.

The European Commission alleges that the "Interpretive Notice" has nothing to do with a boycott of Israel, and the U.S. Administration has officially concurred in that assessment. It merely responds, says the "Interpretive Notice" to "a demand for clarity from consumers, economic operators and national authorities." But this is disingenuous. The Commission has indicated (although this is not stated in the "Interpretive Notice" itself) that the first products to be labeled will be fresh food and cosmetics. It can hardly be a coincidence that Jordan Valley dates and an Israeli cosmetic firm have been favourite targets of boycotters. These were exactly the consumers who demanded such clarity and the Commission is satisfying their wishes.

There is a long list of separatist movements in the EU, some demanding greater autonomy, others demanding independence. As many Jews in Israel have European connections, it is easy to imagine that some of these Jews have corresponding sympathies and "demands for clarity" about the products of the respective European states. Surely one can imagine Israeli Jews who would like to buy Scotch whisky only from the few firms that are still in Scottish hands. How can Israelis' right to know fairly be denied? Israel is entitled to request that Europeans label their products accordingly, both in this case and in innumerable other like cases.

The countries whose separatist movements are most conspicuous are Spain and France. But -- as suggested above -- they should be left out for the moment, since they have not yet adopted regulations of the kind called for by the European Commission.

A bill in the Knesset would therefore have to formulate three main requirements for action by the appropriate Israeli government ministry. First, to draw up for each EU member state a list of the relevant regions. This is relatively easy. Second, to formulate detailed regulations for the three states that already label "settlement products." Third, a statutory duty to formulate like regulations for any other EU state, but only if and when it decides to adopt the "Interpretive Notice."

Even Denmark has separatist movements in Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Bornholm. The cases of Belgium and the UK hardly need explaining, except that Belgium has its German minority and the UK has a separatist movement in Cornwall, which should therefore be added to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

It may seem rather silly to label many Scottish distilleries as "English settlements," although one can probably find Scots who feel that way about them. This author is on record as not favouring separatism in the UK, but only (as a Welsh speaker) due provision for regional cultural differences. But the silliness merely reflects the silliness of the European bureaucrats and their "Interpretive Notice." In practical terms, imitating the silliness has a sensible effect: it imposes a counter-burden upon the original sillies for the burden that they impose upon Israel.

A Possible Compromise?

To be precise, the "Interpretive Notice, as quoted above, asserts that "the expression 'Israeli settlement' or equivalent needs to be added." That is, it does not absolutely require that particular expression, so is there some alternative mutually acceptable to the European Commission and Israel?

For instance, replacing "Israeli settlement" with "Israeli product" would be less offensive to Israelis. Only, it would be anathema to Scots to label any whisky as an "English product."

Perhaps the European Commission and Israel could settle for "Israeli-owned enterprise" on Rosenblum's dates and "English-owned enterprise" on Scotch whisky, respectively. This form of description is accurate; it should satisfy the Commission's desire not to "mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product." The remaining problem is that -- whatever formula is used – this is an unnecessary expense imposed by bureaucrats on business. But since the Commission has decided to go down that path, the Israeli Knesset may have no choice but to follow with its own parallel legislation.

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address:

Comments:

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Gatestone Institute greatly appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right, however, not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or any broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar. All thoughtful suggestions and analyses will be gratefully considered. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Gatestone regrets that, because of the increasingly great volume of traffic, we are not able to publish them all.

15 Reader Comments

Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld • Nov 22, 2015 at 15:35

I have sent the following e-mail message to the EU:

It appears that the European Union is acting in violation of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, Article 6 of which stipulates:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

This Mandate reserved all of Western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, for the Jewish people in which to reconstitute their historic homeland. The Mandate for Palestine has never been amended or abrogated and is still valid under international law.

Many of the same nations now voting to label products from Eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria belonged to the League of Nations when the Mandate for Palestine was confirmed. Apparently, these nations belonging to the EU have never heard of the legal principle of estoppel either.

"Palestine" is not a state. Therefore, Israel is not in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In 1967, faced with aggression from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, Israel liberated Eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, part of its own territory, from Jordan's illegal 19-year occupation. Syria had also been shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee from the Golan Heights for years. Territory taken in a defensive war is treated quite differently under international law from territory taken in a war of aggression.

Kindly consider history and reconsider your decision to label Israeli goods from the territories belonging to Israel under international law. Your present course of action will injure not only Israelis but also the many Palestinian Arabs employed in Israeli industries in these territories.

Reply->

Sid Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld • Nov 26, 2015 at 13:37

Greatly appreciated -- why did not the brilliant legal minds in the Israeli government identify this? Well done -- this is what we need -- a detailed research to establish Israeli legality. Thank you very much.

Reply->

Harvey • Nov 21, 2015 at 16:22

As the writer has correctly pointed out, there are over 200 territorial disputes worldwide, NOT A WORD about any of the others from the EU.

Reply->

G M Ben-Nathan • Nov 20, 2015 at 16:47

Israel should be saying to the EU

"We quite understand your desire to want to label products from beyond the 1967 ceasefire lines. It is your way of appeasing your burgeoning Muslim population. You obviously believe but by coming down on Israel, they will look upon you with favour and not murder non-Muslim citizens in your country.

It's your way of appeasing the growing Islamisation you are experiencing.

It probably won't work. But it's understandable. A good try !

Reply->

S. Bear • Nov 20, 2015 at 12:47

I abhor the BDS movement and join many in decrying the highly discriminatory EU labeling decision. Nevertheless, the case of Scotch produced in Scotland is a very weak counter-example, if for no other reason than that the Scottish people rejected independence from England last year and are practicing a type of devolved power that they negotiated and endorsed electorally. Rightly or wrongly, Israel has not put the West Bank's status to a vote of the inhabitants of that territory. Indeed, the last attempt at a broad Palestinian election brought Hamas to power in Gaza.

Reply->

Empress Trudy • Nov 20, 2015 at 09:43

Label 100% of all Israeli products and services this way. Every line of software, every device, every drug, every piece of technology, every book, every patent, every song, every TV show, every grape or stalk of grain.

All of it, in its entirety. That way the Europeans can decide to do w/out the things they commonly use every day or they can admit they're anti-Semitic hypocrites.

Reply->

Fenris 13 • Nov 20, 2015 at 05:02

In fact, I see no problem in this "labeling". The labeled products will be those I am going to prefer to buy. Czech Republic will stay with Israel as it always did, no matter what minority of our politicians say. Stay strong!

Reply->

Barbara Shabo • Nov 19, 2015 at 19:36

Wonderful idea. Those of us living outside Israel could avoid buying products from countries who boycott Israeli "settlement" products such as Soda Stream.

Reply->

Ruth • Nov 19, 2015 at 12:26

A really excellent analysis by Malcolm Lowe. So at the end of the day, it all boils down to the fact that the EU is treating Israel differently than any other country or area in the same situation - wow, what a surprise!

Reply->

Sid • Nov 19, 2015 at 11:43

The comment that it is part of Syria due to the Supreme Allied Commission after the end of World War One is correct, However, like it or not we must recognise the Jewish ownership of some of the Golan.

This extract is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights

In 1884 there were still open stretches of uncultivated land between villages in the lower Golan, but by the mid-1890s most was owned and cultivated.[53] Some land had been purchased in the Golan and Hawran by Zionist associations based in Romania, Bulgaria, the USA and England, in the late 19th century and early 20th century.[54] In 1880, Laurence Oliphant published Eretz ha-Gilad (The Land of Gilead), which described a plan for large-scale Jewish settlement in the Golan.[55] In the winter of 1885, members of the Old Yishuv in Safed formed the Beit Yehuda Society and purchased 15,000 dunams of land from the village of Ramthaniye in the central Golan.[56] Due to financial hardships and the long wait for a kushan (Ottoman land deed) the village, Golan be-Bashan, was abandoned after a year. Soon afterwards, the society regrouped and purchased 2,000 dunams of land from the village of Bir e-Shagum on the western slopes of the Golan.[57] The village they established, Bnei Yehuda, existed until 1920.[58][59] The last families left in the wake of the Passover riots of 1920.[56] In 1944 the JNF bought the Bnei Yehuda lands from their Jewish owners, but a later attempt to establish Jewish ownership of the property in Bir e-Shagum through the courts was not successful.[58]

Between 1891 and 1894, Baron Edmond James de Rothschild purchased around 150,000 dunams of land in the Golan and the Hawran for Jewish settlement.[56] Legal and political permits were secured and ownership of the land was registered in late 1894.[56]

So to sum it up the EU's stand is Anti Semetic

Reply->

Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld Sid • Nov 23, 2015 at 13:18

I want to thank Sid for his comment containing information on the history of ownership of the Golan Heights. His comment is very valuable in establishing the true ownership of land there. I had not previously been aware of this history.

Reply->

Lia • Nov 19, 2015 at 11:35

On the other hand, labelling makes it easy for me to buy, specifically, such goods, thereby supporting both Israel & the Arabs, who'd be out of work if I (and others) did not support them.

Reply->

jane • Nov 19, 2015 at 11:33

On November 11, 2015, the Commission of the European Union issued the "final" version of its "Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967." The word 'final' has particularly unpleasant historical connotations in this respect. I think a counter campaign should be started: Ban Dictatorial Stupidity.

Reply->

Michael Maguire • Nov 19, 2015 at 11:27

"Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967."

Who does the territory of Judea & Samaria belong to, if Israel has been occupying it since June 1967?

In 1922, the Mandate for Palestine gave ALL the territory west of the Jordan River the Jewish People, including Judea & Samaria, the area which the racists in the EU now call territory "occupied by Israel."

Reply->

steven L • Nov 19, 2015 at 11:25

It has another name: "Universalism" for the masses exclusively. No thank you. This is what Islamism is also about.